TAYTAY METHODIST COMMUNITY CHURCH, INC., PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. ELADIO M. REYES, AND PHILIPPINES ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF THE METHODIST CHURCH, DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

The issue involved in this appeal is the ownership and administration
of certain properties consisting of the church, parsonage, the land on
which these stand and personal properties held in the municipality of
Taytay, province of Rizal by the local branch of the Methodist Church
known as the Taytay Congregation of the Methodist Church, In this
Congregation, there are two rival groups, one which is loyal to the
Philippines Annual Conference of the Methodist Church, headed by
defendant-appellant Eladio M. Reyes (hereafter referred to as the Reyes
Group), and the other, the herein plaintiff-appellee Taytay Methodist
Community Church, Inc. led by its Pastor David M. Candelaria (hereafter
to be called the Candelaria group), both claiming the properties in
question.

The case was submitted for decision of the Court of First Instance
of Rizal (Civil Case No. 4166) upon a partial stipulation of facts and
additional evidence adduced by the parties. In due time, the trial
court rendered judgment holding that the properties in question are
properties of the Taytay Congregation of the Methodist Church. However,
since the 2 contending groups both claimed exclusive representation of
the Congregation, the trial court adjudged the Reyes group,
representing the defendants-appellants entitled to the privilege of
fully owning all the properties in litigation to the exclusion of the
Candelaria Taytay Methodist Community Church, Inc. vs.
Reyes, et al. group by reimbursing the latter, representing the
plaintiff-appellee, the sum of P44,140.00 which is 1/2 of the value of
the said properties, within a period of 120 days after the decision
became final, with a right thereafter to their exclusive use, enjoyment
and possession. The plaintiff-appellee was ordered, up on the payment
to it of the said sum, to vacate and deliver the said properties to the
defendants-appellants. In the alternative, if the defendants-appellants
failed to reimburse the said amount, then the plaintiff-appellee, upon
reimbursing to the defendants-appellants a like amount within the same
period would become the sole owner of all the properties with right to
their exclusive use, possession and enjoyment. If both parties should
fail to meet the foregoing conditions,then the said properties would be
sold to the highest bidder
at public action and the amount derived therefrom divided equitably
between the parties. Not satisfied with this decision because they
claim that the plaintiff represented by the Candelaria group has no
right whatsoever to the properties in question and, therefore, it is
not entitled to any reimbursement at all, the defendants took the
present appeal directly to this Court stating in their notice of appeal
that the properties involved are valued at more than P85,000.00 or
exceeding P50,000.00 the jurisdictional amount of appeal in civil cases
to the Supreme Court prior to the amendment of the Judiciary Act
increasing said jurisdictional amount to P200,000.00.

In the appeal, the appellants have assigned the following errors as allegedly committed by the trial court:

1. The lower court erred in not holding that all the properties in
   question belong exclusively to the defendant Philippines Annual
   Conference of the Methodist Church; and
2. The lower court erred in refusing to issue an injunction against the plaintiff.

In arriving at the conclusion now assailed in the first assignment as
erroneous, the trial court considered not only the facts stipulated but
mainly the testimonies of witnesses on points not covered by the
stipulation (see decision, pp. 116-122 of the Record on Appeal).
Therefore, since the appeal raises both questions of law and fact that
are in dispute, the case comes within the appellate jurisdiction of the
Court of Appeals, pursuant to the Judiciary Act as amended.

Wherefore, let this present appeal be remanded to the Court of Appeals for decision in accordance with law. So ordered.

Bengzon, C. J., Padilla, Bautista Angelo, Labrador, Reyes, J. B. L., Paredes, Dizon, Regala and Makalintal, JJ., concur.